Does prucalopride reduce the dose of sodium phosphate in bowel preparation? A single‐blind, randomized, and prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sodium phosphate solution (NaP) in oral form is well known and frequently used for good quality bowel cleansing before a colonoscopy, but it carries the potential risk of electrolyte disturbance and dehydration. Prucalopride mitigates severe constipation by promoting colon motility. We evaluated the hypothesis that prucalopride plus one single dose of 45 mL NaP could be used as an alternative bowel preparation. METHODS: Consenting adult patients undergoing a screening colonoscopy were randomized to receive 90 mL NaP (90-NaP) in two split doses or prucalopride 2 mg plus 45 mL NaP (P-NaP). Patients completed a questionnaire about adverse gastrointestinal symptoms and acceptability for bowel preparation. The effectiveness of colon preparation was evaluated according to the Ottawa bowel preparation scale. RESULTS: Bowel cleansing was achieved in 92 patients with 90-NaP and in 97 patients with P-NaP. There was no significant difference in bowel cleansing level and adverse gastrointestinal symptoms between the two groups. However, more patients in the P-NaP group were willing to undertake the same regimen for a subsequent colonoscopy bowel preparation than those in 90-NaP group (82/97; 85% vs 51/92; 55%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The combination of 2 mg prucalopride and 45 mL NaP appeared to provide the same level of bowel cleansing, but it was more acceptable than the 90 mL NaP in split doses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".